Pinpoint Holdings Inc. v. Gage County, Nebraska

Case Number(s)
S-25-0270
Call Date
Case Time
Court Number
Gage
Case Location
Lincoln
Court Type
District Court
Case Summary

S-25-0270 Pinpoint Holdings, Inc., (Appellee) v. Gage County, Nebraska, a political subdivision of the State of Nebraska, Eddie Dorn, Emily Haxby, Erich Tiemann, Dave Swavely, Gary Lytle, Don Schuller, and Terry Jurgens, in their official capacity (Appellants)

 Appeal from the District Court for Gage County, Judge Julie D. Smith  

Attorneys: Jeffery R. Kirkpatrick (Governmental Law, LLC for Appellants) Sheila A. Bentzen, Andrew S. Pollack, and Amber R. Buskness (Rembolt Ludtke LLP for Appellee), and Zachary B. Pohlman (Nebraska Attorney General’s Office as amicus curiae).   

Civil: Utility permits and Nebraska Broadband Bridge Act (Neb. Rev. Stat. § 86-1301 et seq.) 

Proceedings below: Appellee applied to the Gage County Board for a utility permit, which the Gage County Board denied.  Appellee then filed a petition in error with the district court, which the district court granted.  On its own motion, the Nebraska Supreme Court ordered this case to be transferred from the docket of the Nebraska Court of Appeals to its docket.    

Issues: Appellants assign the following errors:  1) The district court erred in granting Appellee’s petition in error when it held that the County Board’s denial of a utility permit was arbitrary and capricious; 2) The district court erred in holding that the Board of Supervisors encroached on the jurisdiction of the Nebraska Public Service Commission; 3) The district court erred in granting Appellee’s petition in error when it found the Board of Supervisors’ denial of a utility permit was not based on sufficient relevant evidence; 4) The district court erred in finding that Neb. Rev. Stat. § 86-704 gives a telecommunications company the right to install lines in County rights-of-way subject only to the County’s determination that the telecommunications company’s infrastructure would not interfere with the use of the county road; and 5) The district court erred in finding that the Board of Supervisors had deviated from its prior utility permit considerations in which it had granted permits as long as they served the public interest. 

 

Schedule Code
SC